MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1832385741 · doi:10.1063/1.4930726

Peripheral white blood cells profile of biodegradable metal implant in mice animal model

2015· article· en· W1832385741 on OpenAlexaff
Devi Paramitha, Deni Noviana, Sri Estuningsih, Mokhamad Fakhrul Ulum, Ahmad Kafrawi Nasution, Hendra Hermawan

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocompatibilityImplantPeripheralMedicineMagnesiumPeripheral bloodBiomedical engineeringWhite blood cellSurgeryInternal medicineMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biocompatibility or safety of the medical device is considered important. It can be determined by blood profile examination. The aim of this study was to assess the biocompatibility of biodegradable metal implant through peripheral white blood cells (WBCs) profile approach. Forty eight male ddy mice were divided into four groups according to the materials implanted: iron wire (Fe), magnesium rod (Mg), stainless steel surgical wire (SS316L) and control with sham (K). Implants were inserted and attached onto the right femoral bone on latero-medial region. In this study, peripheral white blood cells and leukocyte differentiation were the parameters examined. The result showed that the WBCs value of all groups were decreased at the first day after implantation, increased at the 10th day and continued increasing at the 30th day of observation, except Mg group which has decreased. Neutrophil, as an inflammatory cells, was increased at the early weeks and decreased at the day-30 after surgery in all groups. Despite, these values during the observation were still within the normal range. As a conclus ion, biodegradable metal implants lead to an inflammatory reaction, with no adverse effect on WBC value found.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207